PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 17004963

Clinical pathway audit tools: a systematic review.

Abstract

AIM: To determine whether clinical/care pathway audit tools can identify the characteristics of well-organized care processes. BACKGROUND: Although pathways are used worldwide, confusion exists about the concept and impact. Evaluation Search of OVID-Medline, Cinahl, British Nursing Index; manual search of the Journal of Integrated Care Pathways; contact with Smartgroup on Clinical Pathways and board members of the European Pathway Association and Google search. KEY ISSUES: We selected seven of 15 clinical pathway audit tools for this review. Through content analysis, we identified 17 characteristics and grouped them using the realistic evaluation paradigm. The Integrated Care Pathway Appraisal Tool is the most appropriate audit tool to assess clinical pathway documents. CONCLUSIONS: It is astonishing that so little research on clinical pathway audit tools has been underwent, given the prevalent use of clinical pathways. Because the concept of clinical pathways remains unclear, a variety of audit tools are needed to help clarify the concept. Further research on the construct and criterion validity of pathway audit tools is necessary to fully understand why and under which circumstances pathways lead to improved care.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kris Vanhaecht, Karel De Witte, Roeland Depreitere, Walter Sermeus. 2006. Clinical pathway audit tools: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00705.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Clinical management. Design for living.

91 per cent of patients started treatment within two mounths of referral, compared to 70-80 per cent last year. The last five months has seen rapid progress at a rate of 2 per cent a month. Sustaining improvement depends on leadership, measurement and looking at the whole patient pathway.

Critical Pathways↗

[Clinical pathways -- first results of a systematic IT-supported application at a surgical department of a university hospital].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In analogy to industrial process management, clinical pathways have been introduced for operational process organisation in orthopedic and interventional procedures as well as for conservative treatments. Within this study, introduction and continuous, systematic application of clinical pathways at a surgical department of a university hospital was investigated. METHODS: Analysis was performed by IT-based (SAP/i. s. h.med) evaluation of the registered data regarding pathway violations. Additionally, patients' records were matched with the computerized data for quality assurance of pathway documentation. RESULTS: 501 patients were entered in 16 clinical pathways (31 +/- 39 patients per pathway). The mean period from the introduction of a distinct pathway to the data acquisition of the present study ranged from 2 to 14 months (mean 7+/-7.5 months). Pathway violations correlated with the complexity, but not with the period since the pathway was introduced. Organisational reasons next to medical reasons (i. e. delayed gastric function or wound healing) were the most frequent causes for pathway violations. CONCLUSION: Clinical pathways may not only be realised for operative procedures or conservative treatments, but represent a clinical and administrative management instrument at a surgical department of a university hospital for daily work routine. They are suitable as an instrument for clinical quality and risk management, as an economic control instrument in reorganisation phases as well as in the routine of surgical clinics.

Critical Pathways↗